In the 1912 case of The Fair v. Kohler Die and Specialty Company, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent infringement. The plaintiff, Kohler Die and Specialty Co., alleged that The Fair had infringed upon their patented design for a certain type of garment hanger. However, the defendant argued that they were not in violation as their product was different from what was described in the patent claim. After examining both products and comparing them to the original patent description, it became clear to the court that there were indeed significant differences between them - enough so to rule out any possibility of infringement on part of The Fair. The Supreme Court therefore ruled in favor of The Fair stating that while some similarities existed between both products due to functional requirements inherent within all garment hangers (such as hooks), these did not constitute an infringement since they weren't unique or novel aspects protected by Kohler's patent rights. This decision underscored an important principle regarding patents: protection is only granted for new inventions or improvements thereof which are clearly defined within each claim; mere similarities arising from common functionality do not suffice.

In the dissenting opinion for The Fair v. Kohler Die and Specialty Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on a common, everyday object – in this case, a coat hanger – went against established principles of patent law. It was contended that granting such patents could potentially stifle innovation rather than encourage it as intended by the Constitution. Furthermore, they believed that upholding this particular patent would set an alarming precedent where even simple modifications or improvements to existing products could be patented. This view held that patents should only be granted for truly novel inventions which represent significant advancements over prior art and not merely trivial changes or adaptations of known devices.